Aunty,

My support of CnR has nothing to do with any kind of elitism, and everything to do with facing the biological facts. I love to eat fish, but I'm not willing to let that love for fish flesh to lead to the elimination of fishing. Any other sportfisher can make the same choice to minimize their impacts on the stocks. It seems likely, to me, that you haven't had the opportunity to see how advantageous selective regs (and CnR) can be for a river's stock. Do you need an invite to see it for yourself?

I think this particular line of reason is a delineation that you are putting forth. If you can have a larger population of sportfishermen fishing for a longer period of time with the same resource it makes sense for the following reasons:

1) Recreational opportunity is expanded.
2) Additional revenue for the state is generate (debatably good!)
3) Additional revenue for stores that rely on sport fishing

Calling it elitist because of a different fish management strategy is a label you're putting on things. As far as I can see, C&R and it's extended fishing season and going baitless and barbless is only enhancing the fishery.

Case in point, have you been up to BC to fish there stillwater lakes? If you have, that specific example alone is a great reason why selective rules work in some cases. They went from a crappy set of lakes filled with 10" stockers, to a real trophty class fishery...

Just for clarification are you suggesting that the only open rivers for wild fish (OP, Skagit drainage, Kalama, Cow) aren't in a position where C&R should be enacted? Is your specific stance that unless a run is healthy enough for harvest that it shouldn't be fished? I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand the stance. At this point the PS steelhead are being listed and as far as I know the rivers are closed when most of the wild runs start coming through....

That's about the lamest argument I've ever heard! Sounds like you're a PITA advocate......

Calling it "elitist" is just flat out bull$hit, and Aunty knows it...but she's got a burr up her butt about a few things, and logic has gone out the door regarding fisheries management in her world.

I'm not even going to bother with the last handful of posts...suffice it to say, do your damn research and don't just lash out for the hell of it. You do not only yourself a disservice, which frankly I couldn't care less about, but you make the rest of us look bad, too, because you're not only wrong, but your vociferously so.

Fish on...

Todd

It's already that way. At this point the logging, agriculture, commercial real estate, manufacturing, etc are expecting the burden of management to fall on the sport fishermen. Next in line are the commercial guys (with a loss of a complete industry in some cases I might add!), followed roughly and in no particular order by NO ONE!

Logging practices are forced to do studies on raparian area and wetland buffer zones. This usually amounts to a pitiful buffer (either 100' or 100 yards) of wood that isn't worth a damn any how.

Agriculture talks about how they have to forgo their irrigation rights, all the while rivers run low and hot

I can continue to go on and on, but the reality is, the sport fishermen *HAVE* fallen on their swords. Of all the PS rivers only *2* are open after Feb 28th. If you feel that further sacrifice from our fraternatiy is going to solve things, the go for it. But at this point while we are viewed as direct consumers of the resource, our impacts have been minimized as much as can be expected without extinguishing a complete recreational arm.....

That is one bit of info I never thought of. It is pretty far fetched, and if that's the best they can come up with in a court of law, that's a pretty weak argument. But none the less you are entitled to your opinion....

As for getting rid of barbs, I think that's long overdue. Bait is another issue as it has it's uses in specific fisheries (sturgeon, catfish, etc), and it is *definately* is a fish catching machine. But going single barbless for hooks, probably something we as a state should do....

If you don't admit that you have an impact, then you shouldn't be out there at all.

If someone else out there wants to overblow that impact into some sort of a political tool, rather than objectively quantify it, then they are full of crap and will be answered thusly.

Why someone within our own ranks would choose to do that is not only ridiculous, but is self-defeating.

Fish on...

Todd

In Todd's defense on this, it was shot down by our own 9th circuit court of appeals.... Just because an argument can be brought to bear doesn't mean that it merits any real consideration.... To wit, if us using barbs is just admission we shouldn't fish, then the previous steps of not doing *any* wild harvest in the PS region should have been the death knell of all wild steelhead harvest. That's a heck of a lot stronger argument, and it didn't amount to us not fishing anymore... While the populous can be gullable, it's still possible to make reasonable arguments.

Seems to me there are a lot of impacts that could use some more careful quantification here before people spout off without really knowing what they are talking about. Painting all types of businesses and land-uses as essentially "bad" and operating soley for their own interests without regard for fish or their habitat is painting with a pretty broad brush. As with everything else, it isn't a simple black and while issue. Further polarization among those who can influence recovery isn't going to recover the fish.

Let's be *very* clear on this. The Boldt decision was supported on a legal basis by a treaty that your and my forfathers deemed reasonable. This was not *given* to them via the courts, but rather finally enforced by the courts. In other states where that specific treaty was not used, the native americans do not have a 50% share.

If you want to complain about how this happened, complain about the fact that our ancestors thought they could sucker someone, and ended up shitting on their own offspring. Keep that in mind when we decide to try to legislate something for short term gain. Decisions we make now and add as law usually have reprocussions far beyond our lifetimes.

Recent court decisions *have* been reasonable. The EPA was forced by the supreme court to ante up to their responsibilities, the hatchery versus wild thing was dealt with, the weakening of forestry sales was deterred by the courts. All in all, recent changes have been well handled.

You may still be bitter about the Boldt decision, but those sour grapes can't and won't fix what ails the other H's not related to harvest....

I am glad to see that a little passion is being generated in this discussion. I think everybody is on the right track. WSR is already in effect for all Puget Sound rivers and should probably be extended to all Washington rivers. Barbless hook requirements for all waters containing anadromous fish would benefit smolts but would have little benefit to adult steelhead. Bait restrictions might help but would meet a lot of resistance.

CNR! - I think Aunty is correct, not that CNR fishermen are necessarily elitist, but that CNR has a much greater impact than mortality. I am reminded often by my fishing partner for the past 38 years, a fisheries scientist, that as a sports fishermen I don't have to let the facts get in the way of my opinions. A lot of research has been done in the past few years on the effects of CNR, very little on steelhead, but a considerable amount on Atlantic salmon and other threatened species. In every case there is a long lasting effect. Migration is impacted, in one study Atlantic salmon went down river for a period of time, then resumed their upriver migration, arriving two weeks later than normal in the spawning areas resulting in reduced spawning opportunity. There is a long term suppression of hormones after the stress of catch and release resulting in poor reproductive success. It doesn't take being chased down the street every day of the week as Aunty suggested. In New York city there was a rise in babies born with birth defects in the year after 9-11, which was attributed to the stress the mothers experienced following 9-11. Stress effects reproduction in all animals, it drives evolution. For fish that are experiencing the stress of poor habitat , climate change, and competition from other fish the added stress of CNR cannot help. Having access to this info we personally no longer fish for steelhead when hatchery fish aren't readily available. It is not going to save the wild steelhead, 35 years ago we didn't think about it, we released fish and we killed fish, and fishing was always good. Saving wild steelhead requires some attention to the facts and not just our opinions.

BTW, I forgot to put this at the end of my rant... The cost to save these fish is a consequence of our very industry. There are means to do what we need without raping the environment or making it so we have to wipe our asses with leaves.... A happy median can be found...

Kingjamn,

Like I said above a couple of times, emotion will always overrule logic and truth, especially when dealing with many of our fishing brethren who aren't all that interested in the truth.

The Boldt Decision has been discussed ad nauseum, and comments like the above continually are put forth by our own in the fishing world...some who flat out don't know, and by some who should know better, but choose to make emotional arguments rather than logical ones based on fact.

In most contexts, battling the ignorance within our own ranks is the biggest battle we have to fight...it's why we can never get in the same book, much less on the same page.

Once most of the people get interested in the truth, and then find out about it, those who are not interested will be further marginalized and then will have less impact on our image as sportfishermen.

Frankly, I don't know how that will be accomplished...I guess one person at a time...hopefully there will still be steelhead and habitat left to save once enough shed their ignorance and have gotten involved on a 'reality based' level, rather than an emotionally based one.

Fish on...

Todd

If only Aunties energy could be harness for the powers of good!

Actually just consider this. If you *ever* get Auntie to agree with you, you'd have one hell of a zealous ally! I might not agree with her, and some of her comments might piss me off, but I do gotta respect the fire in her belly....

Let's just say she's gone back and forth...and in spite of that, I still consider her an energetic ally on most things fishy.

Fish on...

Todd

Aunty -
Not so sure that I'm asking for the cake and being able to eat it as well however I would like to have either a piece or a bit of the cake. You seem to think that we anglers should have neither.

Consider this simple example. A river historically support an anadromous run of salmonids that number 6,000 spawners, however the population has crashed to a 2,000 fish level and is ESA listed with a recovery goal of 4,000 spawners. Further lets suppose that only a sport fishery (currently catching 500 fish/year) and a hydro dam are the only Hs impacting the system.

Let's suppose that the managers follow your recommendation and the sport fishery is closed bumping the escapement up 2,5000 fish which eventually stablizes at a run size of 3,000. Further lets suppose the hydro operator continues to make good faith efforts (soending many millions of dollars) over the next 2 decades lowering its impacts until recovery (4,000 spawners) is reached. Everyting is good except there are surplus fish to support any fishing effort - any fishing related impacts will drive the run back below that magic 4,000 level.

Do you expect the hydro operator will continue to spend big buck so the run will continue rebuild to a level that supports the fishing once ESA obilagtions had been met? In the world that I live in I don't see that happening; do any of you?.

You are arguing a position where fishing is not a legimate use of the resource and I will continue to find a problem with that and look for solutions that multiple uses.

Now requiring that sport fishermen quite fishing to never fish again while other uses continue to limit population abundances is really lame!

Tight lines
Curt

I don't think it's actually a problem with a legitimate use of the resource, but a ridiculous problem with some of the users...hence the emotional, rather than factual, responses.

Fish on...

Todd

I challenge you to find one single time where I said I have no impact, and that there is no CnR mortality from my fishing.

One time.

You won't find any...not once...ever.

Without fishermen, there will be no fish...period.

Your "Oh, I'm such a victim!" whining and calling it a "personal insult" every time I call you on your bull$hit is getting old...

Fish on...

Todd

Marsha,

The studies relating to mortality on released steelhead have been hashed, and re-hashed, and re-hashed, on this site plenty of times...with no bait and no barb, adult winter run steelhead survive to spawn at about a 97% rate, give or take.

Those are studies on steelhead, not Atlantic Salmon, and not Chinook salmon...steelhead.

Do a search if you don't remember them.

Still waiting for all those times I said I, and others, have no impact when we fish...and we both know how long I'll be waiting for that...since I never said it, ever.

Fish on...

Todd